Michael Bowe is a leading criminal defence lawyer who practices in all courts, against police prosecution and the Director of Public Prosecutions, in Greater Sydney and New South Wales, in the areas of criminal law and traffic law. His practice specialises in court advocacy with a wealth of experience in appearing in the Local, District, Supreme, Court of Criminal Appeal and the High Court of Australia.
If necessary Michael will team with Sydney’s leading counsel to carry your case.
As a lawyer, Michael has appeared in a vast number of matters including but not limited to the following matters listed beneath:
Homicide and related charges – murder, manslaughter, malicious wounding, conspiracy to commit
Sexual assault and related charges – sexual assault, indecent assault, possession of pornography
Assault – assault occasioning actual bodily harm, assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, assault Police, affray etc.
Drug matters – supply, possession, manufacturing, importation, cultivation of prohibited drugs or restricted substances Commonwealth and State
Property, stealing, break and enter, robbery and other serious offences
Summary offence type matters – including offensive conduct, offensive language, custody of a knife or offence of implement, AVO’s
Bail applications – both Local and Supreme Court
Parole matters – revocation of parole, periodic detention, home detention, review hearings before Parole Authority
ICAC, ASIC and NSW Crime Commission, Court Of Criminal Appeal, High Court of Australia
The Sentence of Michael Milne handed down by the Supreme Court of NSW for Money Laundering, a complex income tax related offence, was quashed by the HIGH COURT of AUSTRALIA and a verdict of acquittal entered. The decision acknowledged our submissions that Mr Milne had not “used” property (a parcel of shares), as we submitted he must do, to facilitate the commission of an offence in accordance with the definition of “an instrument of crime”. This case is now a prominent legal precedent and authority for Australian lawyers.
Michael Bowe has acted as Gordon Wood’s Solicitor since his arrest in England and extradition to Sydney, committal, trial in the Supreme Court for the charge of murder and successful appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is with great satisfaction that we have vigorously defended Gordon from the outset resulting in an innocent man walking free from a lengthy incarceration. With committed counsel, the support of his family and friends Gordon has survived an arduous ordeal lasting seventeen years, three of which were in Goulburn Correctional Centre. On Sunday 29 April 2012, Gordon appeared on 60 Minutes with his family and in our view put to rest the innuendo and rumour that had beset this long drawn out case. The media has had, in our opinion, a large role to play in the one sided delivery of information, the slanted sensationalism that ultimately caused this case to end in the Court of Criminal Appeal which unanimously and overwhelmingly acquitted Mr. Wood. Thankfully however, through the 60 Minutes program Gordon was able to express his feelings and emotions concerning the death of Carolyn Byrne. This case is another prominent legal precedent and authority referred to by Australian lawyers.
We are happy to say that we formed part of an experienced team that secured BAIL for Ron Medich in the Supreme Court of NSW. Following an extensive and thoroughly prepared application for bail, Mr Medich who has been charged with murder was granted bail in order that he could vigorously fight and defend his case outside the confines of the prison system.
My client was charged with “knowingly” dealing with the proceeds of crime with a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. He was found in possession of $400,000 of items of clothing, which it was alleged he was selling. Following lengthy negotiations with the DPP and a negotiated agreement as to the facts, subject to an argument about the value of the items, my client pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of ‘recklessly’ dealing with the proceeds of crime. I obtained an expert’s valuation of the items at $100,000 and we provided the court with outstanding character references and testimonials. He was sentenced to 150 hours of community service.
Mr S was charged with being in possession of a large commercial quantity of various sorts of Illicit Drugs in a work area which a variety of people frequented daily but his finger prints and DNA were found on objects associated with the drugs. However with a thorough analysis, detailed cross examination and the use of the appropriate experts we were able to explain to the jury that such evidence had its problems, and those problems created a “reasonable doubt” Our Client was acquitted and found not guilty.
I recently acted on appeal in the District Court for a driver who was pursued by police and stopped in the turning circle of his large apartment block, breathalysed with a reading of 0.22. I ran a defence that was available to him ” the loophole” that the police cannot breathalyse a person in or on their own premises, “at home”. The case was vigorously fought and the pertinent cases distinguished with the outcome being that the police breathalyser reading of my client was thrown out and the case was dismissed.
My client was charged with Driving under the Influence of Alcohol and in a Manner Dangerous. He had been to a nightclub and got into the front passenger’s seat of a Taxi. A dispute arose with the driver who got out of the Taxi. It was alleged that my client released the hand brake causing the cab to roll down a hill and hit a wall before he dived out. On appeal in the District Court, I argued successfully that he wasn’t driving. Under the Road Rules driving means, he had to be in “control” of the “steering, movement or propulsion”. I argued, being in the passenger’s seat he could not be in control of the steering and the movement or propulsion had been caused by the slope not by him even though he may have released the hand brake. He was acquitted and found not guilty of those serious offences.
My client was charged with being in possession of cocaine in 2010 but in the Local Court I had the case dismissed without a conviction pursuant to S 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. However recently he was again detected by a police sniffer dog in Kings Cross and charged once more being in possession of cocaine. Thinking the worse, he attended the Local Court with me but after presenting a plausible submission not to convict the Magistrate exercised his discretion and dismissed the case. Magistrates will exercise their discretion if they can be persuaded a persons life and the community are better served by this more lenient approach.
My client was charged with deemed supply of 25 grams of “Ice”. Police came to his property to serve a warrant from the Family Court. They saw him going over a back fence with drug utensils, cannabis and Ice. He was convicted and jailed by the Local Court. On Appeal the District Court Judge accepted his defence that he had found the Ice on the Hume Highway. At first one could be suspicious but coupled with evidence of, no police intel, no cash, no scales or phone messages, a history of use and found near a regular RBT/RDT police hotspot, was sufficient when cogently put to the judge to establish a defence under S29 (a) of the D M & T Act for personal use only. So no supply. He was immediately released from custody and was last seen hitchhiking his way back home with a skip in his walk.
My client was charged with sexual intercourse without consent in company with others. Following a difficult trial lasting several weeks he was found not guilty of that offence but guilty by the jury of kissing the victim without consent moments before the innocent act of intercourse and was said to be guilty of indecent assault for which he received a 12 months bond to be of good behaviour. Not giving up, I appealed that decision to the Court of Criminal Appeal and following our close analyses of the courts directions and outlined in our submissions to the CCA , it upheld the appeal and dismissed the conviction. The CCA found that by dismissing the first offence S61M any new trial could not be rerun effectively. This is another important precedent for Australian Lawyers.
My client was charged with an offence of illegal behaviour on his property. At the trial an application was made to exclude the evidence. As a consequence, a course of appeals were taken all the way to the High Court on the basis of s138 of the Evidence Act that the evidence obtained was improperly obtained or in contravention of an Australian law [ Surveillance Devices Act] The appeal was successful and the evidence excluded from the trial. This is another prominent legal precedent and authority.